he recent controversy over CBS suspiciously editing Kamala Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview has escalated. This incident has grown larger than one interview or one candidate—it brings into question the role mainstream media in politics.

CBS released a statement framing the incident as Trump making accusations of “deceitful editing.” It went on to admit edits were made, but ultimately placed blame at Trump’s feet, saying, “Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated.”

The statement drew heavy criticism from many people on social media, including lawyers, journalists, former CBS employees like Cathrine Herridge, and Trump himself.

🚨BREAKING: Trump announces he will likely sue CBS/60 Minutes for the editing of Kamala’s answer!

“It’s the worst scandal… I think I’m going to sue.”

They should lose their license for LYING to the American people! pic.twitter.com/9aVw67NHSz

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 18, 2024

The outcries accuse CBS of:

• Breaking journalistic integrity by refusing to release the full transcript.
• Lying about the extent of their deceptive edits.
• Revealing political partisanship by attacking Trump.

Exposing Media Bias

The edited interview omitted certain remarks and altered the context of Harris’s responses. When X users pointed out the discrepancies in various cuts of the question, many raised serious questions about transparency.

Harris’s critics say CBS is actively protecting her from scrutiny, particularly around sensitive topics like immigration and foreign policy. This is not an isolated incident, and many say it’s part of a larger pattern of editorial choices designed to shape public perceptions of Democratic candidates.

Key Examples of Bias

• Selective Editing: CBS edited portions of Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview, raising concerns about presenting an incomplete narrative.
• Lack of Transparency: CBS’s refusal to release the full transcript further fuels distrust, denying the public from judging based on the unedited content.
• Historical Context: This is not the first time CBS or other major networks have been accused of bias. Similar patterns emerged in coverage during the 2016 and 2020 elections, with a notable tilt by legacy outlets toward Democratic candidates.

Consequences for Public Trust

Public trust in the media has been declining for years, and incidents like this only exacerbate the problem. According to MIG Reports data, 60% of overall reactions express skepticism about CBS’s motives. Most Americans suggest the network’s editorial decisions reveal bias against Trump. This growing distrust is not limited to conservative voters—moderates and some Independents often question mainstream media bias.

Voter Group Reactions

• Conservatives: 75% distrust CBS, viewing it as part of a broader media agenda to protect Democrats and harm Trump.
• Moderates: 55% express skepticism but recognize the challenges of modern political journalism.
• Independents: 60% of Independents are ambivalent. They believe the media is biased but they are more concerned about Harris’s policy positions.
• Liberals: 65% of liberal voters defended CBS, saying there is heightened scrutiny on media outlets in a hyper-partisan election.

Impact on the 2024 Election

The implications of media manipulation are increasingly apparent with the rise of alternate platforms like X, where mainstream narratives are regularly challenged. Voters say when networks like CBS push partisan narratives, they influence the election in ways Democrats and media are fond of accusing conservatives of doing.

For the dwindling number of voters who rely on these outlets, distorted stories and depictions of political figures dangerously alter the public’s ability to make informed judgements. This is particularly serious when outlets fail to offer transparency when they are called out.

Voters believe Kamala Harris interviews should have been a straightforward opportunity for voters to understand her positions. Instead, they say CBS’s editing framed her responses in a way that sanitizes controversy, making it harder for voters to assess her leadership capabilities.

Projected Election Impact

• Perception Shaping: Selective editing reshapes public perceptions among undecided voters who may not view unbiased or counter-narrative content.
• Voter Disillusionment: The more voters sense media manipulation, the more disengaged they become, leading to potential lower voter turnout.
• Independent Voters: Important voter groups are becoming disengaged and critical of mainstream media, making gaining their votes more difficult.

Media Credibility Crisis and Trump Hate

CBS’s refusal to provide transparency reflects a broader crisis of credibility in the media. Americans increasingly distrust legacy outlets for news reports and analysis. This crisis exacerbates beliefs that the media is no longer reporting news, but actively trying to shape it.

The problem extends beyond CBS. The selective editing of political figures is part of a larger pattern where media outlets prioritize creating narratives over offering balanced, transparent reporting.

Many voters believe CBS and other outlets harbor a systemic bias against conservatives, but especially Donald Trump. They say partisan bias among executives and journalists pushes the network to present Trump unfavorably at any cost. Many voters feel trapped in a media landscape that cynically frames and twists information while smearing all dissenters as the ones pedaling “misinformation.”

A Nail in CBS’s Coffin

Distrust in the media has been growing for many years. However, this election cycle is further entrenching American views of media bias and free information.

Overall, sentiments indicate voters are angry and concerned that CBS is violating ethical norms. They say manipulating content and failing to provide transparency could be a death blow to the network.

Viewers question both the integrity of individual media outlets and the larger implications of their editorial practices. More Americans are saying legacy media is crumbling and may be obsolete sometime soon.

Both average Americans and celebrities are discussing this, demonstrated by a viral clip of Hollywood actor Zachary Levi calling out the ladies of “The View” for political bias in showbusiness. His assertions that Hollywood is a dying industry gained supportive reactions—especially from users on alternative platforms like X.

Zachary Levi went live on IG to talk about his support for Donald Trump- and towards the end, he sent a message to the women on The View- saying there is very much an imbalance in Hollywood in regards to Conservative and Liberal actors. He also sent a message to his fellow… pic.twitter.com/THXn6DjCJJ

— Steph Anie (@mynerdyhome) October 21, 2024

The presidential election is two weeks out and social media discussions are heating up. This analysis examines the linguistic patterns and themes among Trump and Harris supporters. There are marked differences in tone, strategy, and overall engagement between the two political groups.

Trump Supporters

Confidence and Assertion

• GOP voters are expressing confidence, feeling momentum on Trump’s side.
• 70-75% use declarative, assertive statements, projecting certainty in his victory.
• Phrases such as “We’re taking back America” and “Trump has the majority, just watch” demonstrate their belief in a preordained victory.
• Language reflects a sense of control, citing facts like polling numbers or endorsements to back voter assertions.
• Republicans tend to see themselves as part of an unstoppable movement.

Affirmative Language

• Trump supporters predominantly adopt an affirmative stance.
• 70-80% use positive declarations of Trump’s accomplishments and potential.
• Statements like “Make America Great Again” and “We’re winning this for sure” illustrate a proactive approach to political engagement.
• Rather than addressing the opposition directly, these supporters focus on reinforcing their own narrative of strength and inevitability.
• They often sidestep negative commentary on Harris, choosing instead to concentrate on celebrating Trump’s achievements.

Collective and Detached

• There is a preference for third-person usage among Trump supporters.
• 60-75% of their language focuses on external validation of Trump’s achievements or references to larger groups, such as unions or law enforcement backing.
• For instance, phrases like “The National Border Patrol Council supports Trump” or “Look at the economy under Trump” emphasize collective achievements.
• This language serves to distance the conversation from personal sentiment, creating a sense of communal effort and shared purpose among supporters.

High Excitement

• 75-85% of Trump voters express exuberance and energy.
• Their language is filled with exclamations, capitalizations, and enthusiastic hashtags such as “#Trump2024” and “We’re winning!”
• There is enthusiasm and emotional investment in the campaign’s success.
• Their discussions often mention the excitement of attending rallies or participating in political action, further reinforcing a shared sense of purpose.

Harris Supporters

Defensive and Cautious

• Harris supporters express a more defensive and cautious tone.
• Language reflects frustration with both the opposition and their own camp, as they counter criticisms while praising Harris’s competence.
• 30-35% speak with confidence, but the majority oscillate between defensive and speculative statements.
• Phrases like “Harris will win if people see her vision” or “She’s the only one who can fix this” suggest a need to convince others rather than proclaim victory.
• This reactive posture creates an undercurrent of uncertainty and frustration.

Defensive Language

• 60-65% of Harris supporters tend to react defensively.
• Their comments often defend against criticism and deflect blame to Trump.
• People say things like “She’s done more for healthcare than Trump ever did” and “Trump supporters are just blind to the facts.”
• While there is engagement, confidence is lower, as much of the discourse is reactionary rather than assertive.
• These supporters seem focused on fending off attacks rather than crafting a clear affirmative case for Harris.

Personal and Emotional

• Harris supporters tend to use first-person language more frequently.
• 65-80% of their comments focused on personal experiences or emotional connections.
• Phrases like “I believe Harris is fighting for us” or “We need someone who understands our struggles” are emotionally charged and defensive.
• Personal engagement underscores the emotional investment in the campaign.
• Voters anchor their arguments in personal beliefs rather than collective narratives.

Moderated Enthusiasm

• 40-50% of Democratic voters express high enthusiasm.
• While there is urgency in their language, it often centers on warnings or calls to action against Trump.
• They say things like, “We need to stop Trump” or “Make your voting plan now.”
• The cautious, urgent tone, sounds driven by fear of Trump’s return to power rather than excitement for Harris’s platform.
• The enthusiasm among Harris’s base is subdued, reflecting both concern and the pressing need for political action rather than celebration.

Silent Majority and Subtle Dismissals

Trump Supporters

• One of the defining characteristics of Republican voter language is the quiet, almost dismissive way they address opposing arguments.
• They often ignore or subtly dismiss Harris supporter critiques without engaging in direct confrontation.
• Statements like “Everyone knows the truth” or “People will see through the lies” demonstrate a quiet confidence among Trump supporters.
• This dismissiveness conveys that they believe victory is assured, and engaging directly with opposition claims is unnecessary.

Harris Supporters

• Democratic voters engage more directly with Trump’s base but often do so with a cautious tone.
• While they push back against Trump’s rhetoric, their responses often lack the same level of confidence.
• Their subtle dismissals are frequently tinged with anxiety, as reflected in statements like “Trump is all talk” or “His supporters won’t listen to reason.”
• These comments demonstrate a desire to counter opposition arguments, but with a level of timidity, fear of confrontation, or doubt in their own position.

The Biden-Harris administration’s border is a focal point of the election. Between Oct. 10-17, thousands of voters voiced their strong opinions on the impact of Democratic policies. They link immigration to crime, economic hardship, and political manipulation.

General Sentiment on Immigration

A frequent criticism of the administration is that Biden and Harris allow “open border” policies. Voters particularly point out rising criminal activity and increased human trafficking. They are angry about rising violent crime rates, directly blaming Harris.

Some also scorched Harris’s comments on Fox News, in which she failed to take responsibility for immigration failures during her administration. Those on the right share and discuss a response from the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray—a victim of illegal immigrant crime. She criticized Harris saying, “She is completely full of it. She is not a sincere woman at all. She has no sympathy, no empathy to her."

JUST IN: The mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray unleashes on Kamala Harris, blames Harris for her daughter's r*pe and de*th.

Alexis Nungaray got emotional as she ripped Harris for her half-apology during the Bret Baier interview.

"[Kamala] is completely full of it. She is… pic.twitter.com/RJ61ww0pLy

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 18, 2024

Voter conversations often focus on high-profile incidents, such as gang violence perpetrated by criminal groups like the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. These and other violent crimes are frequently mentioned as examples of the dangers of Harris’s policies.

Beyond the outrage over criminal violence, discussions reveal a growing fear that unchecked immigration is overwhelming social services. Americans fear towns and cities in places like Indiana and Pennsylvania are becoming strained by immigration, just as border states have been for many years.

Major Discussion Themes

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration dominates the discussions with frustration and fear over its consequences. Americans say illegal immigrants are breaking U.S. laws, taking jobs, resources, and opportunities from citizens.

Voters blame the Biden-Harris administration for prioritizing illegal immigrants over Americans. There are also calls for more aggressive enforcement measures, including stricter deportations and policies like E-Verify to curb illegal hiring practices.

Border Security

Americans want a secure border. They view the failures of the current administration as directly responsible for violent crime, drug trafficking, cartel activity, and economic instability. For many, the election is a critical opportunity to correct these failures by ousting Harris, preventing her from further devastating the country with a border crisis.

Cartels and Criminal Activity

People also believe the administration turns a blind eye to cartels which exploit the porous border. They say Democrats tacitly approve of the influx of drugs and dangerous individuals by their inaction. Discussions focus on the human costs of these policies like rising drug-related deaths and violence by gangs in places like Aurora.

Economic and Social Strain

There are concerns that illegal immigration puts undue pressure on local resources, particularly in areas already struggling economically. Schools, healthcare systems, and social services are often overburdened by the influx of migrants. There are more and more communities struggling to maintain public safety and provide for their residents.

Political Manipulation and Distrust in Leadership

Many say Democrats use immigration as a tool to shift the electoral balance by allowing illegal immigrants to vote—either illegally or by with amnesty. Those on the right are especially suspicious that Democrats are undermining national security for political gain. This sentiment fuels much of the criticism directed at both Biden and Harris. This narrative positions immigration a broader ideological and electoral battleground.